Compatibility — Mangal-match (Manglik between partners)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the specific cancellation rule (BPHS A.39), and the three possible verdicts (compatible, cancelled, incompatible). This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the rule and output categories.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with three sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and rule, the second lists the possible verdicts, and the third provides meta-info (group and cost). No unnecessary words, and key information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of nested chart parameters, the schema descriptions cover the parameter details. The description defines the output clearly (three possible verdicts). No output schema exists, but the description suffices. A minor gap is lack of clarification on how the cancellation rule is applied in edge cases, but overall it is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond stating that Manglik status is compared. Since the schema already documents the parameters well, the description adds marginal value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool compares Manglik status of both partners and applies the BPHS A.39 cancellation rule, returning one of three verdicts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vedic_compatibility_manglik_check (which likely only checks individual status) by specifying the mutual cancellation logic.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vedic_compatibility_manglik_check or vedic_compatibility_full. The description does not include context about prerequisites, when to avoid, or when to prefer another tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.